Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: Elliotte Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Kay <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
- From: Prakash Yamuna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:03:52 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: 'Dare Obasanjo' <email@example.com>, 'Prakash Yamuna' <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=M7WdWCWUDsLKBUMeD2PhlV1/RVX9UOM+BERN/B6v/+nbCbgkapWpy9ksUZBlCu40IwHmdrhKYcN5CiDMxU5I81v6D2HJZVXn1blKR6RE3NvaBwToF6s5RNL/25aO37abvcZO0E6HdyR3sdBhyNVHiWQzBpSIGTybNoE3o+nXb+0= ;
- In-reply-to: <421A728C.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sure python folks would convince you of that - that is
because they follow a different programming idiom
(atleast in my mind) and nothing wrong with that...
This is similar to saying why have strongly typed
languages...at some point things will fail...
I mean if we have learnt anything from the threads
going back and forth on this - it is still difficult
to find a middle ground.
Someday we will apply the 80/20 rule and we will
identify what would be worthwhile to expose to the
client based on the clients need; such that this would
be an interface that most models and implementations
can support without them having to jump thorugh many
Till then I say let it be - why standardize an API
before its time has come?
We see this all over the place...it sure is easier to
build on top of simple APIs than to overhaul existing
--- Elliotte Harold <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michael Kay wrote:
> > You know the answer to your question. But it
> doesn't address my point. You
> > claimed that defining the interface to accept
> Source was no better than
> > defining it to accept Object. I pointed out that
> it was better, because
> > defining it as Source would catch many type
> I think the Python folks have pretty well convinced
> me that this doesn't
> help nearly as much as I used to think. I find it
> hard to imagine a case
> where I'd pass the wrong object to a transform
> method, and it would
> survive more than the first test run. These sorts of
> errors are caught
> so quickly they really don't need special compiler
> support to help them.
> Marker interfaces have their places. Serializable
> doesn't bother me, for
> instance, because whether an object is serializable
> or not. An object
> that implements it is probably serializable. An
> object that doesn't
> isn't. Yes, I know there are exceptions to this; but
> that's basically
> how it works. Declare an object Serializable and
> ObjectOutputStream will
> try to serialize it. Declare that an object
> implements Source, and
> there's little a transformer can do.
> Elliotte Rusty Harold firstname.lastname@example.org
> XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around